Republicans Seek To Cut 1.3 Million Vets

[SFC Ollie]

Many, many military families are on food stamps. And Bush I started the military cuts.

First Rift I remember was under Carter.

And every president since has had one, correct?

No, Reagan built the military back up in strength and pay.

I believe there was a small rift under Bush 41 because the military was over strength. But I could be wrong about that. I retired right after Clinton took over I wasn't thinking much about politics. I was a bit busy working 14 hours a day 6 days a week. Training companies can be fun but are a lot of work.

 

[Salt Jones]

Whoops!!
Pentagon reverses course, won't cut troops' pay

Looks that lie didnt wash. Do you have any more lies you can spin as truth?

So, they didn't intend to cut the pay? Public outrage always changes those cuts.

Are you disputing that they attempted to cu the pay?

Do you see anywhere where Bush proposed it?
You are a dishonest disputant and liar of monumental proportions. Not even worth responding to.

So the Bush Department of Defense proposes/submits a budget without the approval/authorization of the President of the USA? Really?

You are a joke. There's nothing worse then a fool, who is to foolish to know he's a fool. You are a fool and you comments in this thread verify what everyone knows. Use better logic/reader comprehension skills and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Salt Jones]

First Rift I remember was under Carter.

And every president since has had one, correct?

No, Reagan built the military back up in strength and pay.

I believe there was a small rift under Bush 41 because the military was over strength. But I could be wrong about that. I retired right after Clinton took over I wasn't thinking much about politics. I was a bit busy working 14 hours a day 6 days a week. Training companies can be fun but are a lot of work.

The effort to close down excess military infrastructure has been going on for decades.2 Indeed, in the 1960s, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara headed an effort to close bases, and the end of the Vietnam War led to another round of closures in the early 1970s. Although these efforts achieved the goal of reducing excess infrastructure, they were plagued by accusations that the executive branch was using the closings to punish foes in Congress. Congress responded by creating a series of legislative obstacles that prohibited the Pentagon from closing bases without the consent of Congress.
By the mid-1980s, the Department of Defense was once again burdened with excess infrastructure. In an effort to address the issue, Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) requested that Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger identify a series of bases that could be closed. Although no action resulted from Secretary Weinberger's list, this effort gave rise to the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1988,3 which formed the first BRAC commission and laid the groundwork for future commissions.
The next three rounds of BRAC were a direct result of the end of the Cold War. Then-Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney recognized the need for significant reductions in base infrastructure and led the effort to obtain congressional approval for additional reductions. Congress passed the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990. This act addressed the shortcomings and criticisms of the 1988 round and provided the model for BRACs in 1991, 1993, and 1995, which have all been completed.
The push for the 2005 round of BRAC began in earnest in1998 with the publication of The Report of the Department of Defense on Base Realignment and Closure,4 which stated that the Pentagon still maintained an excess base capacity of nearly 25 percent.

Guidelines for a Successful BRAC | The Heritage Foundation

A little history.

 

[edthecynic]

Believe me, if there were any legs/validity to this late-breaking "story" (first published by Congress in 2008, ahem....under whose watch, ahem) - it would be plastered all over MSNBCPMS, Keith Blubberman, CNN, etc. They'd be calling for this Congressman's head.

My VA benefits are just fine. I'll stick to the reports/news the FACTS I receive from the credible veteran's associations/organizations I belong to, vs. the OP's yank from an un-credible website.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

That website was the DisabledVeterans.org website and it was from 2011. And the Moochele Bachmann proposal refered to in the article was also from 2011.

Bachmann proposes cuts to veterans benefits | Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media.
Bachmann proposes cuts to veterans benefits

Plan calls for reduction in Social Security Disability Income for vets
By Luke Johnson | 01.28.11 | 10:36 am

This week, Rep. Michelle Bachmann proposed $400 billion in “real and necessary” budget cuts in federal spending to avoid raising the budget ceiling from $14.3 trillion. The cuts include capping increases in Department of Veterans Affairs’ health care spending and reducing Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) payments for veterans, all to save a total of $4.5 billion.
However, health care costs are rising anyway, meaning less care, and SSDI payments are only $12,800 a year, according to the Air Force Times:

Her list of cuts doesn’t explain the impact of freezing veterans’ health care funding, but the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said in a report issued in October that health care costs have been quickly increasing. VA’s health care budget was $44 billion in 2009, $48 billion in 2010 and is at $52 billion this year. The report forecasts a health care budget of $69 billion or higher by 2020 if trends continue, the report estimates.




Update: Rep. Tim Walz, the highest-ranking enlisted soldier ever to serve in Congress, has responded to Bachmann’s proposal with the following statement:

“We have to have an aggressive, long-term plan to tackle our nation’s debt, but attempting to balance the budget on the backs of veterans who have risked life and limb in service of our country is unacceptable. I believe we can and should work together to find reasonable and common-sense cuts that will reduce our debt, but as a generation of warriors returns from two wars, our most solemn responsibility is to make sure they have the care and benefits they have earned.”
​

 

[rdean]

And every president since has had one, correct?

No, Reagan built the military back up in strength and pay.

I believe there was a small rift under Bush 41 because the military was over strength. But I could be wrong about that. I retired right after Clinton took over I wasn't thinking much about politics. I was a bit busy working 14 hours a day 6 days a week. Training companies can be fun but are a lot of work.

The effort to close down excess military infrastructure has been going on for decades.2 Indeed, in the 1960s, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara headed an effort to close bases, and the end of the Vietnam War led to another round of closures in the early 1970s. Although these efforts achieved the goal of reducing excess infrastructure, they were plagued by accusations that the executive branch was using the closings to punish foes in Congress. Congress responded by creating a series of legislative obstacles that prohibited the Pentagon from closing bases without the consent of Congress.
By the mid-1980s, the Department of Defense was once again burdened with excess infrastructure. In an effort to address the issue, Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) requested that Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger identify a series of bases that could be closed. Although no action resulted from Secretary Weinberger's list, this effort gave rise to the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1988,3 which formed the first BRAC commission and laid the groundwork for future commissions.
The next three rounds of BRAC were a direct result of the end of the Cold War. Then-Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney recognized the need for significant reductions in base infrastructure and led the effort to obtain congressional approval for additional reductions. Congress passed the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990. This act addressed the shortcomings and criticisms of the 1988 round and provided the model for BRACs in 1991, 1993, and 1995, which have all been completed.
The push for the 2005 round of BRAC began in earnest in1998 with the publication of The Report of the Department of Defense on Base Realignment and Closure,4 which stated that the Pentagon still maintained an excess base capacity of nearly 25 percent.

Guidelines for a Successful BRAC | The Heritage Foundation

A little history.

History from the Heritage Foundation?????

Hilarious. They are the ones who said the Bush Tax cuts would bring millions of jobs. You could write a 10 volume series of books on the times they have been wrong about everything. That organization is a "joke". Not to be taken seriously. Fox is more honest than the Heritage Foundation. They are the ones behind the Ryan Plan that would reduce unemployment to 2.5%.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Wonder how many tax cuts you can give millionaires by cutting programs that help Americans who are least able to help themselves?

why dont you ask Jerry Brown.....he may know....

 

[Salt Jones]

No, Reagan built the military back up in strength and pay.

I believe there was a small rift under Bush 41 because the military was over strength. But I could be wrong about that. I retired right after Clinton took over I wasn't thinking much about politics. I was a bit busy working 14 hours a day 6 days a week. Training companies can be fun but are a lot of work.

The effort to close down excess military infrastructure has been going on for decades.2 Indeed, in the 1960s, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara headed an effort to close bases, and the end of the Vietnam War led to another round of closures in the early 1970s. Although these efforts achieved the goal of reducing excess infrastructure, they were plagued by accusations that the executive branch was using the closings to punish foes in Congress. Congress responded by creating a series of legislative obstacles that prohibited the Pentagon from closing bases without the consent of Congress.
By the mid-1980s, the Department of Defense was once again burdened with excess infrastructure. In an effort to address the issue, Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) requested that Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger identify a series of bases that could be closed. Although no action resulted from Secretary Weinberger's list, this effort gave rise to the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1988,3 which formed the first BRAC commission and laid the groundwork for future commissions.
The next three rounds of BRAC were a direct result of the end of the Cold War. Then-Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney recognized the need for significant reductions in base infrastructure and led the effort to obtain congressional approval for additional reductions. Congress passed the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990. This act addressed the shortcomings and criticisms of the 1988 round and provided the model for BRACs in 1991, 1993, and 1995, which have all been completed.
The push for the 2005 round of BRAC began in earnest in1998 with the publication of The Report of the Department of Defense on Base Realignment and Closure,4 which stated that the Pentagon still maintained an excess base capacity of nearly 25 percent.

Guidelines for a Successful BRAC | The Heritage Foundation

A little history.

History from the Heritage Foundation?????

Hilarious. They are the ones who said the Bush Tax cuts would bring millions of jobs. You could write a 10 volume series of books on the times they have been wrong about everything. That organization is a "joke". Not to be taken seriously. Fox is more honest than the Heritage Foundation. They are the ones behind the Ryan Plan that would reduce unemployment to 2.5%.

Was I posting to you? Are you a veteran? I was having a friendly conversation with a fellow vet and I used a source he may trust.

Now that you have butted in, can you dispute the history from the link I cited? Did the BRAC's occur in those years?

 

[edthecynic]

Just to bring everyone up-to-speed on the OP of this thread, The Congressional Budget Office's "Budget Options, Volume 1, Health Care" that contains this "Option 35" was released in December 2008. Who was running Congress then?

Thanks.

You keep babbling about this "option 35" being from 2008, but the link is from March 2011. Who controls the House in 2011???

Thanks.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12085/03-10-ReducingTheDeficit.pdf

 

[Too Tall]

I've got a brilliant idea..... How about we put all that money back in the VA budget by taking it out of places it REALLY shouldn't be.....

HUD, Education, Welfare, Social Security, Foreign Aid, Domestic Disaster Aid, etc....

I find it interesting we can talk about the retiring generations, but never a thought of our returning troops. You can either afford them or you can't.

Now we have Republican Paul Ryan identified, the black sheep of the VA. I say it is an unfair call, as he isn't the only unpatriotic bastard considering this from both sides of the isle.

But he will do to examine what is going through these bastards minds. He is no veteran, never fought for his country, was never taken down with chemicals or wounds, lost an arm or a face. Yes, he had other things to do, like cut veteran benefits. He is the first one to defend himself with, "Well they volunteered."

Name fucking names!!! Here is an example of the devil bastards in their details. If you are a veteran you get no dental care, or least that was the case about 8 years ago. BUT there is an exception, IF your were a POW you get dental care. BUT there is a devilish exception. IF you were captured, tortured, beaten, teeth broke out, BUT you managed to escape within 45 days,................Well then, no soup for you. Here the guy manages to escape, but he just didn't stay around to be tortured, pissed on, fucked in the ass, etc., he gets no dental care just like the office clerk who served at home on a military base.

It is that devil in the details thinking that comes from minds like the Paul Patriots in Congress. And they undermine VA benefits every chance they get, every time opportunity presents itself.

I got a letter from the VA last week requiring me to verify my 2009 income. The government speak amounted to:

1. A veteran with 2 dependents and a 2009 income below $37,304.00 would continue to
get Free VA health care.
2. A veteran whose income is higher will have to pay co-pays for VA health care.
3. In addition, any Veteran who enrolled after January 16 2003, has 0 service
connected disability, and has income exceeding the above will have his or her VA
Health care cancelled.

I do find it interesting that you blame Ryan for your alleged problems 8 years ago.

 

[Too Tall]

Believe me, if there were any legs/validity to this late-breaking "story" (first published by Congress in 2008, ahem....under whose watch, ahem) - it would be plastered all over MSNBCPMS, Keith Blubberman, CNN, etc. They'd be calling for this Congressman's head.

My VA benefits are just fine. I'll stick to the reports/news the FACTS I receive from the credible veteran's associations/organizations I belong to, vs. the OP's yank from an un-credible website.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

Same here Warrior.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Republican’s War on Veterans Benefits Continues

by Ben Krause

Remember Michele Bachmanns’s attempted $4 billion cut from disabled veterans compensation? Well, “they’re ba-ack…” Except this time they are looking to cut away at our VA healthcare.
Republican Paul Ryan and the House of Representatives are looking to end VA healthcare for over 1.3 million veterans who are Priority 7 & 8. These veterans are the least disabled veterans using the system, usually with disability ratings of 0 percent or no service-connected disability. According to the Congressional Budget Office “Option 35,” the cuts would leave 130,000 veterans with no healthcare alternative. This means veterans with conditions not recognized by the VA, like certain diseases from Agent Orange exposure, would have to pay for healthcare out of pocket if they had not other service connected disability.
Currently, the VA spends over $4 billion yearly to treat these vets, despite co-pays intended to offset the expense. Ryan’s cuts are intended to save $6 billion off the VA’s tab and $62 billion over the next 10 years. Instead of merely increasing the co-pay or taxing Wall Street, Congress wants to just cut your benefits out, all together.
Disabled American Veterans (DAV) is fighting the across the board cut because many of the veterans in question have come to rely on VA healthcare over the years. In times when healthcare costs are astronomical, these veterans will go without the care they were promised, if the proposal becomes law. DAV voiced additional concerns that this attempt is just the start of a gradual and specifically focused erosion of veterans’ benefits.




Update: the cuts discussed above did not make the “markup.” Once the topic was run up the flagpole, public outcry caused the House to go back to the drawing board. Instead, the House spending for the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims by half of the requested funds from the White House. This court is one of the last resorts for veterans’ disability appeals. Meanwhile, they did allow funding for the VA to police the hand washing of its employees using RFID technology. So while veterans may not get the care they need or the disability rating they deserve, VA employees will not have pee on their hands. At least the government contractor responsible for implementing the system will get paid.

Wait a minute, it was the democrats that held military compensation over the heads of republicans if they didn't meet the libfuck demands on a budget...

Besides, bills could have many things in them - funding for multiple programs..

Of course the libfuck strategy is to combine funding for logical programs with illogical programs, then when the illogical spending is opposed by republicans libfucks claim republicans are against the logical spending but fail to disclose the illogical spending.

As usual liberals are intellectually dishonest.

Instead of making wild accusations post the proposed piece of legislation.

 

[oldsalt]

Dipshit, I'm talking about overall treatment of current military and Vets.

Democrats have floated the idea of no military retirement after 20 years or forcing them to wait till they're 65 to get something. Now that is really support the Vets, eh?

Nevermind Obama trying to make military pay for healthcare costs in Tricare, now that is supporting the troops.

The thing is the DoD budget should trim the fat, but attacking the actual troops' benefits and pay to make up for the trillons thrown away by Obama is bullshit.

I saw the military under Carter, Clinton and Obama first-hand....it sucks compared to Reagan and Bush x 2.

As someone that has been around the military my entire life....I call bullshit whenever some lib claims to support the Vets and current military more than conservatives. This article is probably half-truths and spin to make up bullshit over the issue.

When it gets down to it, Democrats have been cutting up the DoD budget the past few years even now threatening to cut our DoD budget to around 2% of GDP when our enemies like China are growing their military.

The libs here telling their side of the story are full of shit, they are the old pervert trying to lure the kid into their apartment with a toy.....

Veteran's benefits are not scored as part of the DoD budget. But as someone who's been around the military your entire life..you probably knew that..

Right?

Liar, that was a bipartisan commission that proposed that......

 

[rdean]

The effort to close down excess military infrastructure has been going on for decades.2 Indeed, in the 1960s, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara headed an effort to close bases, and the end of the Vietnam War led to another round of closures in the early 1970s. Although these efforts achieved the goal of reducing excess infrastructure, they were plagued by accusations that the executive branch was using the closings to punish foes in Congress. Congress responded by creating a series of legislative obstacles that prohibited the Pentagon from closing bases without the consent of Congress.
By the mid-1980s, the Department of Defense was once again burdened with excess infrastructure. In an effort to address the issue, Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) requested that Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger identify a series of bases that could be closed. Although no action resulted from Secretary Weinberger's list, this effort gave rise to the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1988,3 which formed the first BRAC commission and laid the groundwork for future commissions.
The next three rounds of BRAC were a direct result of the end of the Cold War. Then-Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney recognized the need for significant reductions in base infrastructure and led the effort to obtain congressional approval for additional reductions. Congress passed the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990. This act addressed the shortcomings and criticisms of the 1988 round and provided the model for BRACs in 1991, 1993, and 1995, which have all been completed.
The push for the 2005 round of BRAC began in earnest in1998 with the publication of The Report of the Department of Defense on Base Realignment and Closure,4 which stated that the Pentagon still maintained an excess base capacity of nearly 25 percent.

Guidelines for a Successful BRAC | The Heritage Foundation

A little history.

History from the Heritage Foundation?????

Hilarious. They are the ones who said the Bush Tax cuts would bring millions of jobs. You could write a 10 volume series of books on the times they have been wrong about everything. That organization is a "joke". Not to be taken seriously. Fox is more honest than the Heritage Foundation. They are the ones behind the Ryan Plan that would reduce unemployment to 2.5%.

Was I posting to you? Are you a veteran? I was having a friendly conversation with a fellow vet and I used a source he may trust.

Now that you have butted in, can you dispute the history from the link I cited? Did the BRAC's occur in those years?

Yes, I am a veteran.

 

[Sallow]

Dipshit, I'm talking about overall treatment of current military and Vets.

Democrats have floated the idea of no military retirement after 20 years or forcing them to wait till they're 65 to get something. Now that is really support the Vets, eh?

Nevermind Obama trying to make military pay for healthcare costs in Tricare, now that is supporting the troops.

The thing is the DoD budget should trim the fat, but attacking the actual troops' benefits and pay to make up for the trillons thrown away by Obama is bullshit.

I saw the military under Carter, Clinton and Obama first-hand....it sucks compared to Reagan and Bush x 2.

As someone that has been around the military my entire life....I call bullshit whenever some lib claims to support the Vets and current military more than conservatives. This article is probably half-truths and spin to make up bullshit over the issue.

When it gets down to it, Democrats have been cutting up the DoD budget the past few years even now threatening to cut our DoD budget to around 2% of GDP when our enemies like China are growing their military.

The libs here telling their side of the story are full of shit, they are the old pervert trying to lure the kid into their apartment with a toy.....

Veteran's benefits are not scored as part of the DoD budget. But as someone who's been around the military your entire life..you probably knew that..

Right?

You're talking about 2 completely different things.

 

[rdean]

Republican’s War on Veterans Benefits Continues

by Ben Krause

Remember Michele Bachmanns’s attempted $4 billion cut from disabled veterans compensation? Well, “they’re ba-ack…” Except this time they are looking to cut away at our VA healthcare.
Republican Paul Ryan and the House of Representatives are looking to end VA healthcare for over 1.3 million veterans who are Priority 7 & 8. These veterans are the least disabled veterans using the system, usually with disability ratings of 0 percent or no service-connected disability. According to the Congressional Budget Office “Option 35,” the cuts would leave 130,000 veterans with no healthcare alternative. This means veterans with conditions not recognized by the VA, like certain diseases from Agent Orange exposure, would have to pay for healthcare out of pocket if they had not other service connected disability.
Currently, the VA spends over $4 billion yearly to treat these vets, despite co-pays intended to offset the expense. Ryan’s cuts are intended to save $6 billion off the VA’s tab and $62 billion over the next 10 years. Instead of merely increasing the co-pay or taxing Wall Street, Congress wants to just cut your benefits out, all together.
Disabled American Veterans (DAV) is fighting the across the board cut because many of the veterans in question have come to rely on VA healthcare over the years. In times when healthcare costs are astronomical, these veterans will go without the care they were promised, if the proposal becomes law. DAV voiced additional concerns that this attempt is just the start of a gradual and specifically focused erosion of veterans’ benefits.




Update: the cuts discussed above did not make the “markup.” Once the topic was run up the flagpole, public outcry caused the House to go back to the drawing board. Instead, the House spending for the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims by half of the requested funds from the White House. This court is one of the last resorts for veterans’ disability appeals. Meanwhile, they did allow funding for the VA to police the hand washing of its employees using RFID technology. So while veterans may not get the care they need or the disability rating they deserve, VA employees will not have pee on their hands. At least the government contractor responsible for implementing the system will get paid.

Wait a minute, it was the democrats that held military compensation over the heads of republicans if they didn't meet the libfuck demands on a budget...

Besides, bills could have many things in them - funding for multiple programs..

Of course the libfuck strategy is to combine funding for logical programs with illogical programs, then when the illogical spending is opposed by republicans libfucks claim republicans are against the logical spending but fail to disclose the illogical spending.

As usual liberals are intellectually dishonest.

Instead of making wild accusations post the proposed piece of legislation.

You can't really force Republicans to do anything by threatening regular American's benefits. They don't care. Now if you threatened a corporation tax increase it would be another matter.

Remember, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts because Republicans threatened to cut off unemployment benefits for millions of Americans. Obama just couldn't let that happen. It was only 6 or 7 months ago. Not nearly enough time to "rewrite" history.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Truth is the US Congress regardless of which party is in control, has a habit of looking to save money on the backs of the military and more than just Veterans, on the retirees. I expect to never see a cost of living raise again that isn't taken away for health care. But we're used to it, or should be.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Republican’s War on Veterans Benefits Continues

by Ben Krause

Remember Michele Bachmanns’s attempted $4 billion cut from disabled veterans compensation? Well, “they’re ba-ack…” Except this time they are looking to cut away at our VA healthcare.
Republican Paul Ryan and the House of Representatives are looking to end VA healthcare for over 1.3 million veterans who are Priority 7 & 8. These veterans are the least disabled veterans using the system, usually with disability ratings of 0 percent or no service-connected disability. According to the Congressional Budget Office “Option 35,” the cuts would leave 130,000 veterans with no healthcare alternative. This means veterans with conditions not recognized by the VA, like certain diseases from Agent Orange exposure, would have to pay for healthcare out of pocket if they had not other service connected disability.
Currently, the VA spends over $4 billion yearly to treat these vets, despite co-pays intended to offset the expense. Ryan’s cuts are intended to save $6 billion off the VA’s tab and $62 billion over the next 10 years. Instead of merely increasing the co-pay or taxing Wall Street, Congress wants to just cut your benefits out, all together.
Disabled American Veterans (DAV) is fighting the across the board cut because many of the veterans in question have come to rely on VA healthcare over the years. In times when healthcare costs are astronomical, these veterans will go without the care they were promised, if the proposal becomes law. DAV voiced additional concerns that this attempt is just the start of a gradual and specifically focused erosion of veterans’ benefits.




Update: the cuts discussed above did not make the “markup.” Once the topic was run up the flagpole, public outcry caused the House to go back to the drawing board. Instead, the House spending for the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims by half of the requested funds from the White House. This court is one of the last resorts for veterans’ disability appeals. Meanwhile, they did allow funding for the VA to police the hand washing of its employees using RFID technology. So while veterans may not get the care they need or the disability rating they deserve, VA employees will not have pee on their hands. At least the government contractor responsible for implementing the system will get paid.

Wait a minute, it was the democrats that held military compensation over the heads of republicans if they didn't meet the libfuck demands on a budget...

Besides, bills could have many things in them - funding for multiple programs..

Of course the libfuck strategy is to combine funding for logical programs with illogical programs, then when the illogical spending is opposed by republicans libfucks claim republicans are against the logical spending but fail to disclose the illogical spending.

As usual liberals are intellectually dishonest.

Instead of making wild accusations post the proposed piece of legislation.

You can't really force Republicans to do anything by threatening regular American's benefits. They don't care. Now if you threatened a corporation tax increase it would be another matter.

Remember, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts because Republicans threatened to cut off unemployment benefits for millions of Americans. Obama just couldn't let that happen. It was only 6 or 7 months ago. Not nearly enough time to "rewrite" history.

Really?

Remember when the government was about to shut down and republicans insisted on keeping military compensated and democrats told them to go fuckoff if republicans didn't agree to SPEND MORE MONEY...

Besides democrats don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves - they use others for personal gain.

Democrats give you a bunch of free shit NOT because they like you, or care about you - but because they like being a politician and they like the power and authority that comes with it, so they pay you for your fucking vote.

Now real republicans on the other hand actually make difficult decisions, that at times wont be popular with the lazy government dependent peons..

Also, I'd give a corporation a tax cut way before I'd ever cut a welfare check out to some lazy but able bodied fool (military excluded)..

 

[daveman]

So Bush didn't attempt to cut combat pay or survivor benefits during the Iraq War?

Do you have anything credible that says he did?

Bush plan would cut $255 Social Security death payment | The San Diego Union-Tribune

$255? Really? You know that the Serviceman's Group Life Insurance pays up to 400 grand, right?

Troops in Iraq face pay cut / Pentagon says tough duty bonuses are budget-buster

here you go

The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq...​

The Pentagon. Not Bush. And this article is before the fact. What actually happened?

 

[daveman]

As someone that has been around the military my entire life....I call bullshit whenever some lib claims to support the Vets and current military more than conservatives. This article is probably half-truths and spin to make up bullshit over the issue.

When it gets down to it, Democrats have been cutting up the DoD budget the past few years even now threatening to cut our DoD budget to around 2% of GDP when our enemies like China are growing their military.

The libs here telling their side of the story are full of shit, they are the old pervert trying to lure the kid into their apartment with a toy.....

I call BULLSHIT!

Here you are calling the disabled veterans who wrote the article dishonest, while pretending to support the military. And calling these disabled veterans "Libs" who "are full of shit" even though CON$ always claim that the military is CON$ervative.

He's talking about YOU, genius.

 

[edthecynic]

As someone that has been around the military my entire life....I call bullshit whenever some lib claims to support the Vets and current military more than conservatives. This article is probably half-truths and spin to make up bullshit over the issue.

When it gets down to it, Democrats have been cutting up the DoD budget the past few years even now threatening to cut our DoD budget to around 2% of GDP when our enemies like China are growing their military.

The libs here telling their side of the story are full of shit, they are the old pervert trying to lure the kid into their apartment with a toy.....

I call BULLSHIT!

Here you are calling the disabled veterans who wrote the article dishonest, while pretending to support the military. And calling these disabled veterans "Libs" who "are full of shit" even though CON$ always claim that the military is CON$ervative.

He's talking about YOU, genius.

Hey genius the article is from the Disabled Veterans website. He is calling them BULLSHIT ARTISTS.

Republican’s War on Veterans Benefits Continues